Launch delays hamper near-term impact of GPS experimentation program
The service planned to launch the Navigation Technology Satellite-3 demonstration, dubbed NTS-3, in 2022 with an eye toward experimenting with new positioning, navigation and timing signals and payloads that could be installed on future GPS satellites and shape its long-term plans for the constellation.
The satellite's development, led by the Air Force Research Lab and L3Harris, has proceeded on schedule, but delays to the rocket assigned to fly the spacecraft — United Launch Alliance's new Vulcan Centaur — have stalled the program for years. The mission is slated to fly on Vulcan's first national security launch this year, but those plans are on hold as the company awaits final certification from the Space Force.
Cordell DeLaPena, who oversees the Space Systems Center's positioning, navigation and timing and satellite communications portfolios, said the service is weighing its options for how to proceed with integrating NTS-3 technology into upcoming GPS production lines.
'The longer it takes to actually launch those experiments, get the data and be able to assess it, the window starts to close on the availability of production vehicles,' he told Defense News in an interview.
The Space Force had intended to funnel NTS-3-proven capabilities into the production line for its latest variant of GPS satellites, dubbed GPS IIIF. The service plans to buy 20 of these satellites from Lockheed Martin and, to date, has ordered 10. The first five of those spacecraft are slated for deliveries over a five-year period beginning in 2027.
ULA's new rocket won't fly its first Space Force missions until 2025
DeLaPena said GPS IIIF is approaching the end of its design period and will soon shift toward production. There's still room on the satellite for additional size, weight and power — or SWAP — which means the program could still make changes to incorporate NTS-3 technology. But the clock is ticking, he said.
'If there are a handful of these experiments that launch and prove themselves out on orbit and if they're mature enough to start considering maturing those concepts for production, that would be the path,' DeLaPena said.
If the the Space Force misses its window to install NTS-3 technology on the first five GPS IIIF satellites, the service could aim to include any relevant technology either on its next batch of five spacecraft or as part of other PNT programs, DeLaPena said. That includes a program called Resilient GPS, which is meant to augment the larger constellation with a fleet of small, lightweight, lower-cost satellites.
The Space Force's NTS-3 demonstration and its plans for Resilient GPS, or R-GPS, are part of a broader rethinking of its approach to providing navigation and timing capabilities. One piece of that involves the orbit in which satellites reside.
The military has traditionally launched its GPS satellites to medium Earth orbit, and that's where R-GPS will operate. However, the service is considering a multi-orbit approach for its future PNT capabilities. Along those lines, NTS-3 is destined for geosynchronous orbit, and the Space Development Agency plans to launch PNT satellites to low Earth orbit as part of its Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture.
DeLaPena noted that demonstrating a 'blended,' multi-orbit navigation capability is a primary goal for NTS-3, adding that countries like Japan, South Korea and India are all exploring GEO-based systems.
The Space Force is in the midst of an analysis of alternatives that will further define a roadmap for the service's future mix of PNT capabilities. The need for an R-GPS capability was an outgrowth of that study, which should be completed this summer, DeLaPena said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Here's What It Costs To Charge a Tesla Monthly vs. Using Gas for a Nissan Rogue
As gas prices continue to rise and electric vehicles (EVs) become more popular, many drivers are wondering whether making the switch saves money month to month. Trending Now: For You: The Tesla name has become almost synonymous with EVs, but how do charging costs stack up against fueling something like a Nissan Rogue, one of the most popular gas-powered SUVs in the U.S.? The answer mostly comes down to three things: how much you drive, how you charge, and where you live. Let's break down the monthly cost difference using average prices and typical driving habits. We'll use the Tesla Model 3 Rear-Wheel Drive as our benchmark. According to Tesla, it consumes about 25 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per 100 miles. The average U.S. residential electricity rate was 17.11 cents per kWh as of March 2025, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Assuming you drive 1,200 miles per month: 1,200 ÷ 100 x 25 kWh = 300 kWh used 300 kWh x $0.1711 = $51.33 per month Most Tesla owners charge at home, but if you rely on Superchargers, where rates can range from around 25 cents to 60 cents per kWh depending on time and location, your monthly charging cost could land anywhere between $75 and $180, based on how much you drive. Check Out: According to Nissan's official website, the 2025 Rogue S and SV front-wheel-drive models have a 33 mpg combined fuel economy rating (30 city and 37 highway). Assuming the same 1,200 miles per month: 1,200 ÷ 33 mpg = 36.36 gallons of gas The national average gas price as of June 2025 is $3.14 per gallon, according to AAA 36.36 gallons x $3.14 = $114.16 per month This can vary depending on local gas prices and your specific trim or drivetrain. Vehicle Monthly Mileage Fuel Type Efficiency Monthly Cost Tesla Model 3 1,200 Electricity 25 kWh/100 miles $51 Nissan Rogue 1,200 Gasoline 33 mpg (FWD) $114 Charging a Tesla at home saves about $63 per month or roughly $750 per year, compared to fueling a Rogue. While savings shrink if you rely on public charging, they can still be substantial. While Tesla charging is cheaper, there are some upfront and ongoing costs to consider. Installing a home charger can cost between $500 and $1,500, depending on your electrical setup. Insurance premiums for EVs like Teslas may also be higher and repairs can be more expensive out of warranty. That said, EVs typically require less maintenance, no oil changes, fewer moving parts and no transmission work. Meanwhile, the Rogue's fuel economy may drop in cold weather or during stop-and-go city driving, potentially increasing your monthly gas bill. If you're charging at home, a Tesla is significantly cheaper to 'fuel' each month than a Nissan Rogue. While exact savings depend on your location and driving habits, most EV owners can expect to spend far less on energy costs, making the switch not just environmentally friendly, but also financially wise. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 8 Common Mistakes Retirees Make With Their Social Security Checks 7 Tax Loopholes the Rich Use To Pay Less and Build More Wealth This article originally appeared on Here's What It Costs To Charge a Tesla Monthly vs. Using Gas for a Nissan Rogue
New York Times
2 days ago
- New York Times
Daniel Kleppner, Physicist Who Brought Precision to GPS, Dies at 92
Daniel Kleppner, an experimental physicist who helped to develop an atomic clock that became an essential part of global positioning systems, or GPS, and who also helped to discover a rare fundamental state of matter predicted by Albert Einstein and his fellow theoretical physicist Satyendra Nath Bose, died on June 16 in Palo Alto, Calif. He was 92. His wife, Beatrice, confirmed the death. She said he collapsed while visiting their daughter, Sofie Kleppner, and her son, Darwin, who was graduating from high school. It was in the mid-1950s, while he was doing a fellowship at the University of Cambridge in England, that Dr. Kleppner learned something surprising: It was possible, a tutor told him, to build a clock precise enough to detect the effects of gravity on time. Curious, he went in search of more information and read Norman Ramsey's 1953 book 'Nuclear Moments.' After his fellowship, he went on to do graduate work at Harvard University, where he discovered that Dr. Ramsey was on the faculty. He immediately applied for Dr. Ramsey's research group and was accepted. Dr. Ramsey would eventually share the 1989 Nobel Prize in Physics for research he had done in the 1940s, when he discovered a way to measure the frequencies of electromagnetic radiation absorbed by atoms and molecules. His experimental technique laid the groundwork for nuclear magnetic resonance, a precursor to the M.R.I. technology used in medicine today. The atoms of each element vibrate at a unique frequency, like the signature call of a bird. Dr. Ramsey's work made it possible for scientists to build what is known as an atomic clock — a device that measures those vibrations, using the information to keep incredibly precise time. (The official measure of a second, for example, is 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a cesium atom.) Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Business Insider
2 days ago
- Business Insider
This tech CEO quit to redesign the 155mm shell — and upend how the West buys its weapons
Tiberius Aerospace unveiled Sceptre, a 155mm artillery shell with an extended range. The startup's open-platform model licenses the design to governments for local production. It's an approach that challenges traditional defense procurement, aiming at agility and innovation. A few weeks ago, a new defense tech startup stepped out of the shadows with a bold claim: it had built a radically advanced 155mm artillery shell called Sceptre. The ammo quickly grabbed attention for its promised combination of unprecedented range and precision. But its creator, tech entrepreneur Chad Steelberg, believes the real innovation isn't necessarily what Sceptre does — it's how it's made and sold. Speaking to Business Insider, Steelberg described Sceptre as an open weapons platform: licensed to governments, built locally, and updated like software. This frees up Tiberius Aerospace — his startup — to focus on R&D rather than managing huge manufacturing contracts. It's a model born not in a defense industry boardroom, but in the logic of Silicon Valley and the battlefields of Ukraine — one built for speed, iteration, and scale. The proposal is a radical step away from the highly centralized, slow-moving defense industrial base and contracting and acquisition processes that the Pentagon and other Western countries are wedded to, and it's sparked a mixture of curiosity and skepticism. A founder with a mission In late 2024, sickened by the Russian onslaught in Ukraine, Steelberg made a decision. He stepped down as CEO of the AI firm he had cofounded, Veritone, and handed the keys to his No.2. "I gave them four months' notice" before founding Tiberius Aerospace, he told BI. He knew nothing about aerospace back then, he said. But he knew people who did, bringing in a Navy SEAL commander, a former Apple hardware lead, and a top engineer from Raytheon. "You get the best people in the world," Steelberg said. "You put 'em in a room, lock the box, and say: let's solve this problem." That led to Sceptre, a rocket-propelled 155mm artillery shell that Steelberg says can hit targets up to 95 miles away— nearly triple the range of standard rounds — with precision, even in GPS-denied environments. The munition itself has undergone test firing on a M777 in the US. Given its differences from standard rounds (those without rocket assist) — which have a range of about 15 miles and require add-ons for rocket propulsion and precision guidance — it's a category-defying munition more comparable to an extended-range GMLRS. But, like the original 155mm round, it's fired from a howitzer. In artillery battles, range is critical; after all, that's part of the reason the HIMARS, a rocket artillery system, was so effective when it initially arrived in Ukraine: it gave Kyiv's forces much-needed reach in combat. Steelberg says it will "change the balance of power" on the Ukrainian battlefield and beyond, though it would need to be widely fielded first. Supplanting old-school procurement Tiberius won't actually be manufacturing Sceptre, offering an unusual "defense-as-a-service" model. The company plans to license the design to governments, which will pay $5 million upfront to gain manufacturing rights, and then $2.5 million a year to stay on board and get continual updates. They can then produce the munition in-country, using their own supply chains and industrial base. What makes this possible is Tiberius opening up its specifications for individual components — like batteries, guidance units, and fuel systems — to outside suppliers. Steelberg said suppliers will be encouraged to propose improvements, as long as the component fits within Sceptre's volumetric space. "We will certify it, test it, fire it on the range, qualify it as a version if it passes safety and efficacy," he said. This creates competition and choice for the governments buying it, he argued. It's a model inspired by the early days of Intel, leaning on an open architecture, Steelberg said. While major companies like Boeing regularly bring in subcontractors to provide parts, Tiberius' platform is built around encouraging an ongoing ecosystem around this logic — almost like an app store for defence tech, with Sceptre at its core. He suggested this would give governments the freedom to choose small, nimble manufacturers, support their own defense ecosystems, and reduce reliance on a handful of major contractors. Governments place an order — keeping the intellectual property — for the version of Sceptre they end up making. The bulk of Sceptre's main parts can be manufactured on simple, widely available CNC machines. This, Steelberg argues, cuts out the need for much of the heavy-duty facilities typically involved in munitions production and opens it up to much smaller players. "So now they're actually allocating dollars to support not just the end weapon they're looking for, but actually the industries and the providers that manufactured it," he said. The result, in his view, is a system that's more agile, more resilient, and better suited to modern warfare, where needs change faster than traditional procurement can keep up with. A global procurement quagmire As NATO countries scramble to rebuild their arsenals, the limits of the traditional procurement system are becoming harder to ignore. "In terms of ammunition, Russia produces in three months what the whole of NATO produces in a year," NATO secretary-general, Mark Rutte, warned recently. Autocratic regimes like Russia's can command industry at will. Democracies can't — and procurement systems built for peacetime tend to move at a glacial pace. In broad-brush terms: a government commissions a giant contractor, a timeline and price are agreed, and five, ten, twenty years later, a product rolls off the line. That model shuts out smaller players almost entirely. "The big, big problem honestly is that there's been a co-evolution of ministries of defense and big prime manufacturers," Steelberg said, describing it as "an intellectual and contractual moat that prevents anyone else from getting in." It's known as the "valley of death," where few new players can easily navigate Pentagon bureaucracy, or can bank on being around long enough to secure a contract. DOD is experimenting with newer and nimbler models — such as open platforms and schemes to partner with smaller companies — but nothing quite to the scale that Tiberius envisions. Paul Hough, a UK-based expert in defense procurement, shares Steelberg's calls for a shake-up of the system. "Before we start pushing tsunamis of money through the old procurement model and the old industrial base structure, we should stop, take a breath," he told BI. The yawning gap between promising prototypes from small companies and actual military adoption is further complicated by the fact that innovation increasingly comes from the private sector. In the 1960s, governments funded around 60% of global R&D, according to Casey Purley, director of the Pentagon's Army Applications Laboratory. Today, she says it's about 20%, with commercial firms — often tech companies — picking up the slack. "From AI to robotics, we need to work with companies we historically haven't," she told a recent conference in London. Quality control Cynthia Cook, director of the Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that Steelberg's model "does have the potential for production where some parts are made by primarily commercial suppliers. "This could be a way of engaging the full industrial base beyond the more narrow slice of companies that are understood to be defense contractors," she told BI. Capt. Bradley Martin, a RAND researcher who specializes in supply chain security, added that "much of the barrier-to-entry problem is solved because a company is only providing a small part of a larger system." But other issues deserve scrutiny, they said. Although Tiberius plans to take charge of certifying components, quality assurance could prove cumbersome, Martin said. Another major issue will be tracking the provenance of materials used by the companies supplying components, he added. "If a company's normal supply chain is heavily China-based, we would be creating a vulnerability," he told BI. Surge production vs just-in-time The US's standard-issue 155mm shells are manufactured by government-owned facilities, so production can lay dormant but be surged relatively easily. That's not really the case for non-standard shells. If companies in the US are not dedicated to producing parts for Sceptre and move out of the business due to a lack of contracts, they'll "need to be attracted back — and they may have other business," Cook said. Hough said that Sceptre may be cheaper and faster to produce in small batches, but he argued that it misses the broader context. Artillery is still primarily an area-effect weapon, he said. The heavy weapons are indirect fire capabilities used for wide destruction and suppression, so while there is a place for the exquisite, precision-guided munitions, unless doctrine changes, precision rounds "are unlikely to supplant area (dumb) rounds," he said. Hough said that, after Ukraine, militaries are prioritizing large stockpiles over just-in-time flexibility — a trend that doesn't appear to align with Tiberius' more agile model. He added that some stages of shell production, including when explosives are inserted into the casing, are also "not a trivial exercise" and favor longer, centralized production runs. For Hough, Tiberius' licensing model may be best used by the military in the same field from which Steelberg took his inspiration — software. "I hope that the Tiberius model works," he said. "But at this point it appears to be a novel potential addition rather than a fundamental change to the established supply chain." Whatever happens, though, he added, "we do need people that challenge this." For Steelberg, his mission is one inspired by Winston Churchill's famous "blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech. But for him, enough blood and tears have been spilled already. "I absolutely am willing to give you my toil and my sweat," he said. But if the West doesn't resolve its procurement issues, "we will be spilling our blood and our tears."
